On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Miao Xie <mi...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:01:26 +0800, Yan, Zheng <zheng....@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 07/19/2010 09:56 AM, Miao Xie wrote: >>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:12:13 -0400, Chris Mason <chris.ma...@oracle.com> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> It seems that the btrfs doesn't support the sectorsize which is >>>>>>> greater than the page size just like ext2/3/4, though we can use >>>>>>> mkfs.btrfs to make a filesystem with a big sectorsize. Am I right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If yes, we must do more check in the mkfs.btrfs. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> yes, btrfs doesn't support the sectorsize> PAGE_size. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So we must do more check in the mkfs.btrfs to avoid misuse, and I'll >>>>> add some check of the sectorsize into the mkfs.btrfs. >>>> >>>> Yes, but this is fixed up with the raid code, we'll allow different page >>>> sizes. >>> >>> Is the raid code that you said the initialization code for the block >>> devices? >>> just like this: >>> >>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c:1430 >>> int btrfs_init_new_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char *device_path) >>> { >>> [snip] >>> set_blocksize(device->bdev, 4096); >>> [snip] >>> } >>> >>> If yes, it uses a hard-code value to initialize the blocksize of the block >>> device, >>> not the blocksize of the btrfs, so the btrfs doesn't check the blocksize of >>> the btrfs. >>> >> This is for btrfs super block, because size of btrfs super block is fixed. > > I don't know how this bug was fixed up. I think if the btrfs doesn't support > the >PAGE_SIZE sectorsize, it should forbid mounting a filesystem with > >PAGE_SIZE > sectorsize. But in fact, we can mount. > > So I think this bug has not been fixed up or the fix is not so good. >
This bug has been fixed up in Chris' raid56 tree. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html